It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions the skeptic DID answer ... a hysteria free thread

page: 2
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mumbotron
 


Please reference where I said the linear no threshold isnt true because I am pretty certain that I said because it cant be demonstrated its falls outside the realm of science and into philosophy.

I find it interesting that you should use a logical fallacy like quoting me out of context to attribute a logical fallacy to me.

edit on 21-4-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

are you refer to the corium as fuel fragments? and are you saying corium can't melt thru concrete?


Based on the opinion of someone who has modeled such phenomenon, (had you bothered to go to the reference) .. no, it wont.


yeah we are seeing how well that's working out


Well, I’m sure if you have a well thought out and well researched alternative, nuclear industry professionals are just dying to know what it is. Tell you what, why not publish a paper on the subject. I am sure your many years of experience in the field coupled with your credentials and education would make people take your opinions very seriously.


so the Chernobyl level of ground contamination 30km from the plant is a local issue?


I must have missed the explosion at Fukushima that sent its reactor lid and its contents thousands of feet into the air.


do you really think the banana dose equivalent even compares...??


When comparing relative and absolute risks I certainly do. But since you seem to have such a more comprehensive and thorough understanding of this subject, please tell me what the absolute risk is for drinking two glasses of Bay Area milk with 78 pCi/L of Iodine-131.

So share your knowledge with the rest of the class, were all ears.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
What part of 'potassium-40 does not bioaccumulate to any specific part of the body' don't you understand ?



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 




Based on the opinion of someone who has modeled such phenomenon, (had you bothered to go to the reference) .. no, it wont.


I did in fact go to the Reference you posted, but perhaps you would like to point out what you are referring to


TEPCO official Junichi Matsumoto described the “possible meltdown”, comparing it to “a state in which molten fuel accumulates like lava.”


source


Corium, also called fuel containing material (FCM) or lava-like fuel containing material (LFCM), is a lava-like molten mixture of portions of nuclear reactor core, formed during a nuclear meltdown, the most severe class of a nuclear reactor accident. It consists of nuclear fuel, control rods, structural materials from the affected parts of the reactor, products of their chemical reaction with air, water and steam, and, in case the reactor vessel is breached, molten concrete from the floor of the reactor room.

source




I am sure your many years of experience in the field coupled with your credentials and education would make people take your opinions very seriously.


and I am sure you know what my credentials and education are right?




I must have missed the explosion at Fukushima that sent its reactor lid and its contents thousands of feet into the air


what does that have to do with the contamination levels?????? or are you saying that it can't happen because it didn't explode just like the Chernobyl accident?? must be all those readings from Japan are wrong then..



actually I give up..you are not worth the effort, it seems all you want to do is insult posters and deny facts.....I guess if one buries head in sand one avoids hysteria...

Have a nice day...and drink lots of milk!



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
This thread is hardly hysteria free. lol

It's already loaded up full of hysteria-cal understatements, soft play and trivializing.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Thought I'd come back to see if I could address some issues but I can see some of the rest of you beat me to the obvious conclusion. If someone isn't open to honestly evaluating the information, then it is just an old fashioned argument and that is always a waste of time.

I have a boatload of files about all of this because the MSM kept changing their story. I could grab some stuff but it really is a waste of time. When a guy decides to go ad hominem, attacking the messenger instead of the message then it is hopeless. Mocking someone who disagrees with your position by claiming they are hysterical is just plain silly at best, manipulative at worst.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Really it's simple (honestly I don't know why I'm bothering), as you were so kind as to reiterate in your reply to me, you consider it an invalid argument philosophy unlike a valid argument something with current scientific data and approval . [f.y.i. that counts for two on the list ]



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by SirMike
 


Really it's simple (honestly I don't know why I'm bothering), as you were so kind as to reiterate in your reply to me, you consider it an invalid argument philosophy unlike a valid argument something with current scientific data and approval . [f.y.i. that counts for two on the list ]


Its not that its an invalid argument, and I never stated that .. its not a “scientific” argument because there is no way to prove it. Theoretical dose response relationships under a certain value, are extrapolated as no data exists to support them. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

and I am sure you know what my credentials and education are right


I have been completely transparent about myself and based on you lack of understanding I can only surmise what qualifies you.


what does that have to do with the contamination levels?????? or are you saying that it can't happen because it didn't explode just like the Chernobyl accident?? must be all those readings from Japan are wrong then..


Use a little commons sense here … umm bad idea for you … try to vizulize the how much worse the contamination levels at Fukushima would be if one of the reactors experienced an excursion that generated at least more power in 20 seconds than the reactor usually puts out in an hour. I say “at least” because the local instruments were pegged at the top of their ranges. Now imagine the excursion triggering an explosion that sent the reactor lid hundreds of feet into the air and much of the reactors fuel and moderator into the stratosphere. That’s why Chernobyl is orders of magnitude worse than Fukushima where they were able to contain most of the radiation on site.


Have a nice day...and drink lots of milk!


Lets toast, one glass of milk for me, and big glass of kool-aide for you.




top topics



 
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join